At least the committee was consistent compared to last year and put Baylor at #9.

I agree with the Committee 100%, but I don't agree with Lobo et al.'s commentary. If Baylor sweeps through the Big 12 there will be enough good wins to make up for their weak non-conference schedule. Three wins over Texas will prove they deserve a #1 seed. It is just that right now they have none.

Didn't MD beat OhSt 3 times last year? Didn't move them up. And if Baylor beats Texas 3 times, Texas will have 6 losses, at least, so they that's going to become less meaningful with each loss.

Kim made her bed with her scheduling.

Nah MD actually lost to OSU the one time they played. But based on just looking at MD’s OOC wins last year against Baylor’s, MD’s looked way better.

(I put them in that order because according to seeding principles that would be his rankings but it really just means he didn't try to set up a full bracket.)

The last four in were: Creighton, Nebraska, South Dakota St, Purdue
First four out: Michigan St, USC, TCU, Buffalo

I would still have USC and TCU in over Creighton and Purdue, and the SDSU situation is difficult. While their resume is arguably good enough now for inclusion (wins over NC St and Oklahoma, losses to Louisville, Green Bay, FGCU, Creighton and South Dakota) the only way they would qualify as an at large is they lose again in the Summit League tournament, and another loss could well knock them out of an at-large berth. That last at-large bid could go to a Mid American team (Buffalo, Ball St or Central Michigan) depending on how their tournament goes.

Of course there is still more than a month to go so some questions will be answered on the court and others will arise, but the tournament is taking shape.

(I put them in that order because according to seeding principles that would be his rankings but it really just means he didn't try to set up a full bracket.)

The last four in were: Creighton, Nebraska, South Dakota St, Purdue
First four out: Michigan St, USC, TCU, Buffalo

I would still have USC and TCU in over Creighton and Purdue, and the SDSU situation is difficult. While their resume is arguably good enough now for inclusion (wins over NC St and Oklahoma, losses to Louisville, Green Bay, FGCU, Creighton and South Dakota) the only way they would qualify as an at large is they lose again in the Summit League tournament, and another loss could well knock them out of an at-large berth. That last at-large bid could go to a Mid American team (Buffalo, Ball St or Central Michigan) depending on how their tournament goes.

Of course there is still more than a month to go so some questions will be answered on the court and others will arise, but the tournament is taking shape.

(I put them in that order because according to seeding principles that would be his rankings but it really just means he didn't try to set up a full bracket.)

Why do you feel Louisville would still be second after their home loss to FSU?

My quick assumption was that Miss St would be today.

That was the point of my comment. Louisville should be fourth among the #1 seeds after their loss to Florida St. The second place team should be awarded Lexington as the closest location to their campus. I agree with you that Mississippi St should be 2 right now, which would put them in Lexington, Notre Dame 3 in Kansas City and Louisville 4 in Spokane.

If Louisville is a#1, I can 90% guarantee they will be in Lexington. Actually, if they are a #1 or #2, that is where they will be. The committee continually overrides the seeding in favor of geography. Why would it be different this year?

_________________“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou

If Louisville is a#1, I can 90% guarantee they will be in Lexington. Actually, if they are a #1 or #2, that is where they will be. The committee continually overrides the seeding in favor of geography. Why would it be different this year?

If Mississippi St goes undefeated they would be the #2 overall seed. In that position they would be rewarded the closest available regional, which would be Lexington. Louisville could be slid down to a 2 seed, and likely will be if they don't win the ACC championship, which could put them in Lexington. If they win the ACC and MSU loses a game they would probably be the overall #2 seed and be in Lexington.

So I believe that Louisville still has perhaps a 75% chance of winding up in Lexington, but not as a #1 if MSU is undefeated.

I'd have Baylor as the number one seed ahead of Louisville and I don't think it's a close call.

I know people have been dumping on Baylor for a substandard schedule, but the strength of schedule (per Massey) is 11th almost identical to Louisville's ranked 10th.

They both have one loss interestingly two teams that are ranked eighth and ninth, with edge to Baylor but that's not the main point – Baylor is lost to UCLA which was quite some time ago has a major asterisk next to it.

I know it's too early to get exercised about this but if I'm Kim Mulkey, and I see that I'm not only demoted to a two seed but headed to a matchup with Mississippi State, probably the second best two seed (although I'd put Baylor ahead of them) I'd be apoplectic.

I know Louisville would like to be in Lexington but they can go there is a two-seed.

South Carolina doesn't really deserve a 2 seed that the moment. Hold that thought for a few hours and they'll either make me eat my words or solidify my belief they are a solid three.

If Louisville is a#1, I can 90% guarantee they will be in Lexington. Actually, if they are a #1 or #2, that is where they will be. The committee continually overrides the seeding in favor of geography. Why would it be different this year?

If Mississippi St goes undefeated they would be the #2 overall seed. In that position they would be rewarded the closest available regional, which would be Lexington. Louisville could be slid down to a 2 seed, and likely will be if they don't win the ACC championship, which could put them in Lexington. If they win the ACC and MSU loses a game they would probably be the overall #2 seed and be in Lexington.

So I believe that Louisville still has perhaps a 75% chance of winding up in Lexington, but not as a #1 if MSU is undefeated.

My apologies. The NCAA in announcing the top 16 today put Louisville in Lexington. It seems the NCAA no longer cares about rewarding the higher seeded team and has changed its principles of seeding. Live and learn

Currently there are 17 mid-major teams in the top 64 of the RPI, but a reasonable assessment shows that only a few have any real shot at an at-large berth.

Horizon
Wisconsin Green Bay (RPI - 16) With 4 wins over top 50 teams (Marquette, Arizona St, Dayton and South Dakota St) and only 2 losses (Mississippi St and Northern Kentucky). They can probably afford two losses and still get in as an at-large, but it is more likely they will win the Horizon automatic bid.
IUPUI (63) Without a top 50 win it is very unlikely that they will be able to get an at large bid. They will need to win the Horizon tournament.

Mid-American
Buffalo (24) Despite being the highest rated RPI team in the MAC the Bulls are 2 games behind Central Michigan. They also have 2 very bad losses (Niagara and Northern Illinois). But while they only have one top 50 win (Ball St) now, they also have wins over Nebraska and St John's that could become top 50 wins. A win over CMU in their rematch could make their resume very good.
Central Michigan (30) CMU went through the non-conference season without an impressive win. They played 3 top 100 teams and lost all of them (Purdue, Quinnipiac and Duquesne) None are bad losses, but the best wins were Vanderbilt and Iowa St. The Chippewas have the toughest conference schedule, playing Buffalo, Ball St and Toledo twice each. So far CMU has beaten Buffalo and Ball St, but they could wind up with 7 or 8 top 50 games, rare for a mid-major. If they win the MAC regular season with 0 or 1 loss and get to the semifinal in the MAC tourney they could get an at-large bid.
Ball St (34) The Cardinals went undefeated in non-conference play, including wins over top 50 teams Purdue and Western Kentucky. Since conference play started they have cooled off, losing to each of the other top 3 teams. They have rematches with both Toledo and CMU left in the regular season.
Toledo (58) Toledo currently sits 4th in the MAC. With 2 bad losses (E Michigan and Kent St) the Rockets will have a tough time making their resume good enough to get an at large bid. But they do have 2 games left vs CMU and a game each vs Buffalo and Ball St and if they win all 4 the conference will be turned upside down.
While it seems unlikely the MAC could actually get 2 at-large bids if the top 3 teams only lose to each other. CMU would probably need to lose to each of the other two once.

Atlantic 10
Dayton (41) The Flyers had 4 non conference losses (Green Bay, South Florida, Quinnipiac, Toledo) and a good win over Virginia. The Atlantic 10 is not as good as usual, but they do have 2 good teams. Dayton beat Duquesne in the regular season. If both teams stay undefeated otherwise and Duquesne returns the favor in the A-10 tourney final Dayton will get a long look.
Duquesne (53) The Dukes had two bad non conference losses to Charlotte and E Tennessee St but also had two good wins (Virginia and Central Michigan). Because they lost to Dayton earlier this week it is unlikely they can get an at-large bid, but if they keep winning they could help the conference.

Summit
South Dakota St (44) SDSU had a good non-conference schedule which included 6 games against top 50 teams. They won 2 (North Carolina St and Oklahoma) and lost 4 (Louisville, Green Bay, FGCU and Creighton). By itself this would be just enough to get in, but without much margin for error. Unfortunately error came in the form of a home loss to South Dakota. In order for SDSU to get an at-large bid they would have to endure another loss to South Dakota in the Summit tournament. Unless the Coyotes are able to move into the RPI top 50, it seems doubtful.
South Dakota (69) The Coyotes have only 2 top 100 wins (Creighton (45) and SDSU (44). Their only remaining top 100 game is SDSU, and if they beat them it is likely the Jackrabbits will fall out of the top 50. They have 3 sub-100 losses, so it seems highly unlikely the Coyotes can get an at-large bid. As for them being able to move into the top 50, their next two games against 5-14 North Dakota St and 3-16 IPFW make that unlikely as well.

Other Conferences
Northern Colorado (39) Northern Colorado beat both DePaul and LSU non-conference but they have 6 losses to teams outside the top 50, so they have almost no chance.
Florida Gulf Coast (RPI 42) FGCU got upset by North Florida today. Given the weakness of the Atlantic Sun Conference, another loss by FGCU would likely knock them out of an at-large berth, which they would have if they lose in the A-Sun tourney.
Western Kentucky (46) The Hilltoppers beat Missouri in the first game of the season. That win is the only real positive on the resume, but it could be enough because the negatives aren't that bad. Their losses are to Notre Dame, Iowa, Ball St, Indiana and UAB; all but ND on the road. They would have to lose another game in the Conf USA tourney to be considered for an at-large bid so the Committee would have to be very impressed with that opening night home win; unlikely but not impossible.
Drexel (47) The Dragons may be a top 50 RPI team but they haven't beaten one. Their best wins are over Elon (73) and Butler (88). Drexel hosts the Colonial tournament so they be able to win and get in, but an at-large bid is highly unlikely.
Princeton (53) Princeton is another team without a top 50 win. Their only top 90 win is over Quinnipiac, but their worst loss is to Georgia Tech (74). The Tigers could get some consideration for an at-large bid if (1) Quinnipiac moves into the top 50, (2) Princeton goes undefeated in the Ivy regular season and (3) loses in the finals of the Ivy tournament. This may not be enough, but it will give them a look.
Quinnipiac (55) The Bobcats played 8 top 64 teams in the non-conference season, winning 3 (Central Michigan, Northern Colorado and Dayton) and losing 5 (Ohio St, Missouri, Iowa, Princeton, Michigan St). That is borderline at-large. Unfortunately the MAAC is so bad that any loss, even in the MAAC tourney probably tips the scales against them.
Mercer (62) The Bears have only lost 2 games all year to Georgia and Western Kentucky, but their best win is over Central Florida. The Committee hasn't generally looked favorably upon such thin resumes, but an undefeated conference season and a loss in the Southern Conference final should merit some consideration.

If Louisville is a#1, I can 90% guarantee they will be in Lexington. Actually, if they are a #1 or #2, that is where they will be. The committee continually overrides the seeding in favor of geography. Why would it be different this year?

If Mississippi St goes undefeated they would be the #2 overall seed. In that position they would be rewarded the closest available regional, which would be Lexington. Louisville could be slid down to a 2 seed, and likely will be if they don't win the ACC championship, which could put them in Lexington. If they win the ACC and MSU loses a game they would probably be the overall #2 seed and be in Lexington.

So I believe that Louisville still has perhaps a 75% chance of winding up in Lexington, but not as a #1 if MSU is undefeated.

To be pragmatic... It's a given that UConn is going to Albany. It's almost as much a given that the #4, which currently looks like ND, is going to Spokane.

For Miss St, it's 500 miles to Lexington (8 hrs by car per mapquest), and 600 miles to KC (10 hrs). Either way, it's a full day drive for fans, and I think the difference is splitting hairs. An add'l 2 hrs isn't likely to deter anyone who really wants to go and a casual fan isn't driving 8 hrs anyway. Expecting the committee to consider flight schedules is crazy. Sending Louisville to Lexington is going to put more of their fans at their game, and put more fans in that arena than sending an SEC team there.

Now if ND wins out decisively, and Miss St or Louisville falters, that makes the seeding and placements a lot more problematic.

If Louisville is a#1, I can 90% guarantee they will be in Lexington. Actually, if they are a #1 or #2, that is where they will be. The committee continually overrides the seeding in favor of geography. Why would it be different this year?

If Mississippi St goes undefeated they would be the #2 overall seed. In that position they would be rewarded the closest available regional, which would be Lexington. Louisville could be slid down to a 2 seed, and likely will be if they don't win the ACC championship, which could put them in Lexington. If they win the ACC and MSU loses a game they would probably be the overall #2 seed and be in Lexington.

So I believe that Louisville still has perhaps a 75% chance of winding up in Lexington, but not as a #1 if MSU is undefeated.

To be pragmatic... It's a given that UConn is going to Albany. It's almost as much a given that the #4, which currently looks like ND, is going to Spokane.

For Miss St, it's 500 miles to Lexington (8 hrs by car per mapquest), and 600 miles to KC (10 hrs). Either way, it's a full day drive for fans, and I think the difference is splitting hairs. An add'l 2 hrs isn't likely to deter anyone who really wants to go and a casual fan isn't driving 8 hrs anyway. Expecting the committee to consider flight schedules is crazy. Sending Louisville to Lexington is going to put more of their fans at their game, and put more fans in that arena than sending an SEC team there.

Now if ND wins out decisively, and Miss St or Louisville falters, that makes the seeding and placements a lot more problematic.

I agree with your logic, but this is a change in the seeding principles. The top 4 seeds used to be placed in order into the bracket. The number 1 team would be placed closest to home, #2 closest to home among the remaining sites, and so on. The new principles remove that process. Indeed they would allow for the number #1 seed to be shipped to Spokane, as it only requires, "The committee will also attempt to assign each team to the most geographically compatible regional." As a practical matter UConn will be placed in Albany regardless, but this wording seemingly doesn't give preference to the higher seeded team. Of the top 16 seeds, Oregon and UCLA are the only ones that would prefer Spokane, and Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M and Missouri are the only ones that would prefer Kansas City. UConn and Maryland are the only 2 closest to Albany (and isn't Brenda Frese thrilled about that). Everyone else is closer to Lexington.

Here is the current wording on the NCAA bracket principles

"Building the Bracket
Step One
Prior to selection weekend, each committee member receives an "initial ballot" comprised of two columns listing all eligible Division I teams in alphabetical order. Each committee member will submit the ballot by a designated time on the first full day of selection meetings. The committee selects the 32 best teams to fill the at-large berths. There is no limit on the number of at-large teams the committee may select from one conference.
Step Two
The committee will create a seed list -- 1 through 64 -- which is used to assess competitive balance of the top teams across the four regions of this national championship. Additionally, the seed list reflects the sequential order with which teams will be placed in the bracket. Once the seed list is finalized, it remains unchanged while the bracket is assembled. Importantly, various bracketing principles may preclude a team from being placed in its true seed on the seed list.
Step Three
A top priority for the committee is to achieve reasonable competitive balance in each region of the bracket. Sixteen levels are established (i.e., the seeds, Nos. 1 through 16) in the bracket that cross the four regions, permitting evaluation of four teams simultaneously on the same level. Teams on each seed line (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc.) should be as equal as possible.
Step Four
The committee will then go through the seed list, placing all teams by seed starting with the four No. 1 seeds, through the No. 4 seeds. After the top four seed lines have been assigned, determining the relative strengths of the regions by adding the true seed numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total. The committee will also attempt to assign each team to the most geographically compatible regional.
Step Five
These additional considerations are also made: If possible, rematches of regular-season games should be avoided in the preliminary rounds. Rematches of previous years' tournament games should be avoided as well. And after examining the previous five years' brackets, teams or conferences will not be moved out of its natural region or geographic area an inordinate number of times."

Mercer (62) The Bears have only lost 2 games all year to Georgia and Western Kentucky, but their best win is over Central Florida. The Committee hasn't generally looked favorably upon such thin resumes, but an undefeated conference season and a loss in the Southern Conference final should merit some consideration.

Isn’t UNC a better win? I remember how excited pilight got when Mercer beat UNC. He almost showed emotion.

_________________Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

Mercer (62) The Bears have only lost 2 games all year to Georgia and Western Kentucky, but their best win is over Central Florida. The Committee hasn't generally looked favorably upon such thin resumes, but an undefeated conference season and a loss in the Southern Conference final should merit some consideration.

Isn’t UNC a better win? I remember how excited pilight got when Mercer beat UNC. He almost showed emotion.

If Louisville is a#1, I can 90% guarantee they will be in Lexington. Actually, if they are a #1 or #2, that is where they will be. The committee continually overrides the seeding in favor of geography. Why would it be different this year?

If Mississippi St goes undefeated they would be the #2 overall seed. In that position they would be rewarded the closest available regional, which would be Lexington. Louisville could be slid down to a 2 seed, and likely will be if they don't win the ACC championship, which could put them in Lexington. If they win the ACC and MSU loses a game they would probably be the overall #2 seed and be in Lexington.

So I believe that Louisville still has perhaps a 75% chance of winding up in Lexington, but not as a #1 if MSU is undefeated.

To be pragmatic... It's a given that UConn is going to Albany. It's almost as much a given that the #4, which currently looks like ND, is going to Spokane.

For Miss St, it's 500 miles to Lexington (8 hrs by car per mapquest), and 600 miles to KC (10 hrs). Either way, it's a full day drive for fans, and I think the difference is splitting hairs. An add'l 2 hrs isn't likely to deter anyone who really wants to go and a casual fan isn't driving 8 hrs anyway. Expecting the committee to consider flight schedules is crazy. Sending Louisville to Lexington is going to put more of their fans at their game, and put more fans in that arena than sending an SEC team there.

Now if ND wins out decisively, and Miss St or Louisville falters, that makes the seeding and placements a lot more problematic.

I agree with your logic, but this is a change in the seeding principles. The top 4 seeds used to be placed in order into the bracket. The number 1 team would be placed closest to home, #2 closest to home among the remaining sites, and so on. The new principles remove that process. Indeed they would allow for the number #1 seed to be shipped to Spokane, as it only requires, "The committee will also attempt to assign each team to the most geographically compatible regional." As a practical matter UConn will be placed in Albany regardless, but this wording seemingly doesn't give preference to the higher seeded team. Of the top 16 seeds, Oregon and UCLA are the only ones that would prefer Spokane, and Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M and Missouri are the only ones that would prefer Kansas City. UConn and Maryland are the only 2 closest to Albany (and isn't Brenda Frese thrilled about that). Everyone else is closer to Lexington.

Here is the current wording on the NCAA bracket principles

"Building the Bracket
Step One
Prior to selection weekend, each committee member receives an "initial ballot" comprised of two columns listing all eligible Division I teams in alphabetical order. Each committee member will submit the ballot by a designated time on the first full day of selection meetings. The committee selects the 32 best teams to fill the at-large berths. There is no limit on the number of at-large teams the committee may select from one conference.
Step Two
The committee will create a seed list -- 1 through 64 -- which is used to assess competitive balance of the top teams across the four regions of this national championship. Additionally, the seed list reflects the sequential order with which teams will be placed in the bracket. Once the seed list is finalized, it remains unchanged while the bracket is assembled. Importantly, various bracketing principles may preclude a team from being placed in its true seed on the seed list.
Step Three
A top priority for the committee is to achieve reasonable competitive balance in each region of the bracket. Sixteen levels are established (i.e., the seeds, Nos. 1 through 16) in the bracket that cross the four regions, permitting evaluation of four teams simultaneously on the same level. Teams on each seed line (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc.) should be as equal as possible.
Step Four
The committee will then go through the seed list, placing all teams by seed starting with the four No. 1 seeds, through the No. 4 seeds. After the top four seed lines have been assigned, determining the relative strengths of the regions by adding the true seed numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total. The committee will also attempt to assign each team to the most geographically compatible regional.
Step Five
These additional considerations are also made: If possible, rematches of regular-season games should be avoided in the preliminary rounds. Rematches of previous years' tournament games should be avoided as well. And after examining the previous five years' brackets, teams or conferences will not be moved out of its natural region or geographic area an inordinate number of times."

The underlying problem is that every year, 6-7 of the eight #1 and #2 seeds come from a geographic area that's equal to 20% of the continental US, and 1-2 regional sites are outside that area. It's impossible to make every team and its fans happy under those constraints.

If Louisville is a#1, I can 90% guarantee they will be in Lexington. Actually, if they are a #1 or #2, that is where they will be. The committee continually overrides the seeding in favor of geography. Why would it be different this year?

If Mississippi St goes undefeated they would be the #2 overall seed. In that position they would be rewarded the closest available regional, which would be Lexington. Louisville could be slid down to a 2 seed, and likely will be if they don't win the ACC championship, which could put them in Lexington. If they win the ACC and MSU loses a game they would probably be the overall #2 seed and be in Lexington.

So I believe that Louisville still has perhaps a 75% chance of winding up in Lexington, but not as a #1 if MSU is undefeated.

To be pragmatic... It's a given that UConn is going to Albany. It's almost as much a given that the #4, which currently looks like ND, is going to Spokane.

For Miss St, it's 500 miles to Lexington (8 hrs by car per mapquest), and 600 miles to KC (10 hrs). Either way, it's a full day drive for fans, and I think the difference is splitting hairs. An add'l 2 hrs isn't likely to deter anyone who really wants to go and a casual fan isn't driving 8 hrs anyway. Expecting the committee to consider flight schedules is crazy. Sending Louisville to Lexington is going to put more of their fans at their game, and put more fans in that arena than sending an SEC team there.

Now if ND wins out decisively, and Miss St or Louisville falters, that makes the seeding and placements a lot more problematic.

I agree with your logic, but this is a change in the seeding principles.

"

Some of your recent comments give me the impression you think the change in seeding principles is very recent. I don't remember the exact date but it has been a number of years since they changed the emphasis from seating order to geography.

I know I made a comment several years ago that they ought to stop making reference to the S-curve which only makes sense in the context of the old principles but they still seem to use that terminology.

However, my point is that this is not something new but something that has been in existence for a number of years. Frankly, it makes sense.

Actually this is a change away from geography. Previously (and although I can't say for sure that this change wasn't in effect last season, it is new in the last few years) geography was the first criteria, particularly for the #1 seeds. The hedge on Notre Dame got press, but it was a matter of a few miles between Bridgeport and Greensboro as I recall. This now merely says, "The committee will also attempt to assign each team to the most geographically compatible regional," and it is lower in the order of importance. Presumably this means that the Committee is returning more to the old S-curve concept. We will see if that truly balances out the regions better.

Actually this is a change away from geography. Previously (and although I can't say for sure that this change wasn't in effect last season, it is new in the last few years) geography was the first criteria, particularly for the #1 seeds. The hedge on Notre Dame got press, but it was a matter of a few miles between Bridgeport and Greensboro as I recall. This now merely says, "The committee will also attempt to assign each team to the most geographically compatible regional," and it is lower in the order of importance. Presumably this means that the Committee is returning more to the old S-curve concept. We will see if that truly balances out the regions better.

What you are missing is the relatively new policy of separating 1-16 teams from the same conference. Now this year the SEC may have more than 4 teams in the top 16 but if not they need to be in separate regions.

In essence what we have at this point is that the committee can and does do anything they want and have policy mandate to point to no matter what.

1. We used the geographical mandate, or
2, We were bound by keeping conference opponents apart (but we don't hesitate to make a 4 a 5 to avoid this), or
3. We needed to "balance the regions".

I don't think the committee itself has any hidden agendas but I do think that what goes on before the committee sits (prioritizing which policies take precedence within the inner circle of the NCAA Womens basketball poobahs which binds the committee's hands) are tainted with political agendas

What you are missing is the relatively new policy of separating 1-16 teams from the same conference. Now this year the SEC may have more than 4 teams in the top 16 but if not they need to be in separate regions.

In essence what we have at this point is that the committee can and does do anything they want and have policy mandate to point to no matter what.

1. We used the geographical mandate, or
2, We were bound by keeping conference opponents apart (but we don't hesitate to make a 4 a 5 to avoid this), or
3. We needed to "balance the regions".

I don't think the committee itself has any hidden agendas but I do think that what goes on before the committee sits (prioritizing which policies take precedence within the inner circle of the NCAA Womens basketball poobahs which binds the committee's hands) are tainted with political agendas

I'm curious. Where does this new policy come from? The information I quoted was from NCAA.org. It wouldn't surprise me that there is such a policy but I can't find it. Can you help?

The Committee has occasionally violated its own principles but more often it has run into problems by slavishly sticking to new principles that weren't well thought out. The best example was the writing/interpreting of the geographic principle which completely undid the S-curve concept.